You made me smile here. Why? Because now I know what particular button to push to really piss you off, and how you respond. See, you really show how bad your debating skills really are when you don't speak about the person who you feel insulted you but lash out at either their family or significant others.

It doesn't show how cruel I am (almost everyone here already knows) but it shows how cruel you actually are by attacking people who have nothing to do with conversation to begin with.

Oh, by the by: I'm not married.

It is a sick thing to say whether it is true or not. I was trying to be funny so I'm glad I made you laugh. I was never pissed off but appalled at your sick twisted mind.

You were the one that started this so you are responsible for the consequences not me. I deal with you as friendly and patiently as I can but here you crossed a line. I would feel sorry for your wife if you had 1. My sweet is not an "animal" she is an angel.

My sex life is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Not married, no surprise there.

There is nothing you can teach me Nam except how to take an insult and yes I'm learning that lesson very well. I will answer questions the way I answer them. Like you I am who I am. I am certainly not more cruel than you. I'm not on a board insulting people for fun. I only insulted your imaginary wife because you said an awful nasty thing about me. Self defense is not cruelty. That's like saying if someone steals from you you're the bad guy for putting him in jail. Yes that does affect the whole family. The thief brought it on not the person he stole from. The key fact is that I felt bad for what I said, but you don't. You are definitely more cruel than me.

Why do you feel the need for ammo? I'm not hurting you. No need for it. More proof of your relentless cruelty. I'm not keeping ammo against you. You want to make me miserable so I'll leave this forum. It's going to take more than what you got to do that.

Logged

when you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change

"{The waters} rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered." (Genesis 7:19)The highest mountain on Earth is Chomolungma (Mount Everest), at a height of 29,029 feet above sea level.

We don't have a date for the flood given, and catastrophic events, such as in this story, could change the topography of the planet surface. The story does state that deep caverns of water burst. How much this may have changed the earth surface is not documented in the story. As you have illustrated, science is almost clueless about past events.

That's not what I asked, SW. I asked you to do the math problem. This is an open-book test, so you may use a calculator.

SW could always do the smaller sum. Apparently the Ark is sitting just below the summit of Mount Arrarat, at around 13,000 feet - the height it would have had to be at at the end of the flood. So let's amend the challenge.

SW.....assuming the earth was covered by water to a depth 13,000 feet greater than today. What is the extra volume of water that would be required? How much would be required to be generated on each day of the 40?

Bonus question: take that volume of extra water, and calculate what size sphere it would be. Compare that sphere to the size of the earth. What percentage of the earth would need to be hollow for all that water to drain away inside it?

"{The waters} rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered." (Genesis 7:19)The highest mountain on Earth is Chomolungma (Mount Everest), at a height of 29,029 feet above sea level.

We don't have a date for the flood given, and catastrophic events, such as in this story, could change the topography of the planet surface. The story does state that deep caverns of water burst. How much this may have changed the earth surface is not documented in the story. As you have illustrated, science is almost clueless about past events.

That's not what I asked, SW. I asked you to do the math problem. This is an open-book test, so you may use a calculator.

SW could always do the smaller sum. Apparently the Ark is sitting just below the summit of Mount Arrarat, at around 13,000 feet - the height it would have had to be at at the end of the flood. So let's amend the challenge.

SW.....assuming the earth was covered by water to a depth 13,000 feet greater than today. What is the extra volume of water that would be required? How much would be required to be generated on each day of the 40?

Bonus question: take that volume of extra water, and calculate what size sphere it would be. Compare that sphere to the size of the earth. What percentage of the earth would need to be hollow for all that water to drain away inside it?

I can make the assumption that the only mountain at the time of the flood was Mount Arrarat and it was 5 ft tall at the time. And there were no sea. Because I don't know the topography at the time before the flood. Or when it even occurred.

We don't have a date for the flood given, and catastrophic events, such as in this story, could change the topography of the planet surface. The story does state that deep caverns of water burst. How much this may have changed the earth surface is not documented in the story. As you have illustrated, science is almost clueless about past events.

That's not what I asked, SW. I asked you to do the math problem. This is an open-book test, so you may use a calculator.

We don't have a date for the flood given, and catastrophic events, such as in this story, could change the topography of the planet surface. The story does state that deep caverns of water burst. How much this may have changed the earth surface is not documented in the story. As you have illustrated, science is almost clueless about past events.

That's not what I asked, SW. I asked you to do the math problem. This is an open-book test, so you may use a calculator.

29000/40725/2430.20 feet per minute?

Thats a lot of water!

I'm not going to do math on problems with variable inputs. The height of the mountains and the depth of the oceans are both variables. We don't know what they were at the time, or the time.

I'm not going to do math on problems with variable inputs. The height of the mountains and the depth of the oceans are both variables. We don't know what they were at the time, or the time.

You have to assume that there will be an even coverage of water. We know the surface area of the earth to be 196,936,994 square miles[1]So how much water would you need to raise the water level by a single foot?You don't need to know the exact height of mountains to calculate that.

These threads are fascinating, frustrating and futile. It's like a car accident that you can't look away from. Because no matter what, even when backed into an inescapable corner, there's always the "goddidit by magic" clause.

It's just a question of how long it takes before it kicks in, because most of those who believe in a literal flood are still happy enough to use it at the very start to explain things such as how Noah procured all the animals needed, or how they all got back to their original habitats, etc. Yet they insist on trying to argue the feasability of actually building the ark, or having it be seaworthy rather than just say "god just changed the laws of physics for that instance".

On the surface, it can sometimes read like an actual discussion/debate, but since there is no way to believe the story is actually true without at least SOME divine interference, there's really no set line at which such interference negates the "truth" of the story.

One keeps trying to chip away at it thinking that surely there will be some point at which the theist's mind will open enough to acknowledge at least the possibility of a flaw in the narrative, but as long as there's that god clause, it's just not going to happen. Or, at least, hasn't in my experience.

And SW's premise that the world of the time could have been so different from the one we live in that Ararat could have been 5 feet tall for all we know is actually new to me. Are there actually people out there for whom this line of thinking makes any sense? Because that train of thought seems that it would lead to a whole NEW bunch of impossibilities to explain.

These threads are fascinating, frustrating and futile. It's like a car accident that you can't look away from. Because no matter what, even when backed into an inescapable corner, there's always the "goddidit by magic" clause.

It's just a question of how long it takes before it kicks in, because most of those who believe in a literal flood are still happy enough to use it at the very start to explain things such as how Noah procured all the animals needed, or how they all got back to their original habitats, etc. Yet they insist on trying to argue the feasability of actually building the ark, or having it be seaworthy rather than just say "god just changed the laws of physics for that instance".

On the surface, it can sometimes read like an actual discussion/debate, but since there is no way to believe the story is actually true without at least SOME divine interference, there's really no set line at which such interference negates the "truth" of the story.

One keeps trying to chip away at it thinking that surely there will be some point at which the theist's mind will open enough to acknowledge at least the possibility of a flaw in the narrative, but as long as there's that god clause, it's just not going to happen. Or, at least, hasn't in my experience.

And SW's premise that the world of the time could have been so different from the one we live in that Ararat could have been 5 feet tall for all we know is actually new to me. Are there actually people out there for whom this line of thinking makes any sense? Because that train of thought seems that it would lead to a whole NEW bunch of impossibilities to explain.

There are more people out there than you think that believe in God, not the bible, and the population is growing. Google spiritual vs. religious. That's what that means. I like the way you post JT. I just don't think God does the things the bible claims God did like drown millions or burn down Sodom and Gomorrah or asked Abraham to sacrifice his son or ordered the stoning of gays. Sorry for all the ors could have kept it up though.

Logged

when you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change

These threads are fascinating, frustrating and futile. It's like a car accident that you can't look away from. Because no matter what, even when backed into an inescapable corner, there's always the "goddidit by magic" clause.

It's just a question of how long it takes before it kicks in, because most of those who believe in a literal flood are still happy enough to use it at the very start to explain things such as how Noah procured all the animals needed, or how they all got back to their original habitats, etc. Yet they insist on trying to argue the feasability of actually building the ark, or having it be seaworthy rather than just say "god just changed the laws of physics for that instance".

The complaints come in strong and hard in those instances that one is copping out.So your complaint can't hold any water.But I do point out that God has an unusual control over water and it's properties. Saying, material in the scriptures in one place, supports the scriptures in other places. And the stories also confirm themselves. Like people who complain about rough seas,I point out that no rough seas are mentioned. People who complain about room for every known species, I point out that "every known species" is a modern construct. Also not in the story. About animals eating each other, I point out that GOD brought them to the Ark.He showed that much influence, he could have them not eat each other. That's not a stretch.

I can make the assumption that the only mountain at the time of the flood was Mount Arrarat and it was 5 ft tall at the time. And there were no sea. Because I don't know the topography at the time before the flood. Or when it even occurred.

Fair enough. And I'll make the assumption that a lot of six foot tall people survived the flood. Especially because of the calm seas. As usual, god didn't do it right.

It is cute that you are making up even more parameters. I would love to see all the excuses for why the flood was real in one place. Sadly, christians aren't that organized. You would think that the ones who claim that the water was contained in a huge bubble above the atmosphere would get together with you 'gushing from the rocks' folks and find a way to agree on the source. Hey, its not like you don't have the perfect word of god to use as a resource. And lucky you, ignorant of how much water it would take to flood the planet, you get tocasually excuse all valid criticism and idly make up new numbers. So that your old ones will either look a little more legit or, more likely, continue to hide your ignorance about everything real.

You understand, of course, that there are christians who claim that the water did indeed rise above the height of Mt Everest, which was 29,000 feet high then as well. You understand that there are christians who claim that the grand canyon was formed by the flood in a matter of months rather than millions of years. An accomplishment which I'm pretty sure would require more than 5 feet of water. And by the way, I'm pretty sure it would be difficult to build a 600 foot long boat whose draft was only four feet. But hey, maybe it had handles and god was holding it up.

This is a human story. Made up by humans, for humans, most likely in an effort to, among other things control the listeners. And as you are so competently demonstrating, in many cases it works.

Inconsistently though. Hence the long list of christian excuses (which which you are adding right now) about the hows and whys of such an unlikely event.

At least you are upholding the long christian tradition of covering your asses (while simultaneously insisting that "ass" is a dirty word and calling its use a sin). I assume you're proud.

I can make the assumption that the only mountain at the time of the flood was Mount Arrarat and it was 5 ft tall at the time. And there were no sea. Because I don't know the topography at the time before the flood. Or when it even occurred.

Fair enough. And I'll make the assumption that a lot of six foot tall people survived the flood. Especially because of the calm seas. As usual, god didn't do it right.

It is cute that you are making up even more parameters. I would love to see all the excuses for why the flood was real in one place. Sadly, christians aren't that organized. You would think that the ones who claim that the water was contained in a huge bubble above the atmosphere would get together with you 'gushing from the rocks' folks and find a way to agree on the source. Hey, its not like you don't have the perfect word of god to use as a resource. And lucky you, ignorant of how much water it would take to flood the planet, you get tocasually excuse all valid criticism and idly make up new numbers. So that your old ones will either look a little more legit or, more likely, continue to hide your ignorance about everything real.

You understand, of course, that there are christians who claim that the water did indeed rise above the height of Mt Everest, which was 29,000 feet high then as well. You understand that there are christians who claim that the grand canyon was formed by the flood in a matter of months rather than millions of years. An accomplishment which I'm pretty sure would require more than 5 feet of water. And by the way, I'm pretty sure it would be difficult to build a 600 foot long boat whose draft was only four feet. But hey, maybe it had handles and god was holding it up.

This is a human story. Made up by humans, for humans, most likely in an effort to, among other things control the listeners. And as you are so competently demonstrating, in many cases it works.

Inconsistently though. Hence the long list of christian excuses (which which you are adding right now) about the hows and whys of such an unlikely event.

At least you are upholding the long christian tradition of covering your asses (while simultaneously insisting that "ass" is a dirty word and calling its use a sin). I assume you're proud.

Whatever language helps stroke your ego and makes you feel strong and brave, you are welcome to use it.

I only point out that if you read the story, as written, there are fewer problems.

I'm not going to do math on problems with variable inputs. The height of the mountains and the depth of the oceans are both variables. We don't know what they were at the time, or the time.

Putting aside the fact that I actually specified the variables to use in the problem, SkyWriting, I see that MrJason kindly did the math for you.

So how high would Chomolungma have to be at the time of the Noachide flood in order for Noah's boat to not break up and sink within the first hour or so? 20,000 feet? 10,000? 5,000? The height of the largest hillock within sight of the writer of the Enûma Eliš, from which the Noah story was nicked?

I think that if you were to enlist the help of a competent Geologist and a knowledgeable Anthropologist, you would soon learn that the tallest mountains on Earth were not appropriately tiny at any time when Homo sapiens sapiens (or any related Great Apes possessed of boat-building skills) were walking the Earth.

I'm not going to do math on problems with variable inputs. The height of the mountains and the depth of the oceans are both variables. We don't know what they were at the time, or the time.

I suggest taking a class on basic algebra if you wish to learn how to deal with variables in math.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Whatever language helps stroke your ego and makes you feel strong and brave, you are welcome to use it.

I only point out that if you read the story, as written, there are fewer problems.

I've read the story as written. It makes about as much sense as a four year olds excuse as to why there are cookies missing.

The language I am using doesn't stroke my ego one fucking bit. It merely informs me. That language is science, which tells us stuff, like how tall the frickin' mountains were 6,000 and 16,00 and 26,00 and 36,000 years ago. Maybe not to the foot, but far more in the ballpark than anything you can make up.

There is no evidence whatsoever that there was a flood other than your silly story. There is no corroborating evidence, there is no part of the flood story that matches any of dozens of the sciences. If you are one of those that believes the dinosaurs were wiped out by the flood, why is it that the same older species are ALWAYS found in older rock than the newer species. I mean every frickin' time. All you theists would have to do is go out and find a Triceritops buried shallower than a Diplodocus, and wham, you've disproven geology and evolution and thrown the whole of science into question. But you can't do that, can you?

There have been huge floods on this planet. Huge by human standards. But not by planetary standards. What is now the Black sea was once dry, and flooded when that area, which was under sea level, became unundated after the earth dam that separated it from the Mediterranean broke. Where I live in Montana used to be under water. It was flooded when glacial ice blocked the river that drained this region and when that dam broke (eight times over a few thousand years) it washed house sized boulders out of Montana and into Washington. And left huge, huge (the largest in the world) gravel bars in the world. And by biblical/global standards, those gravel bars would have to be tiny. Where are your biblical flood caused gravel bars?

We who realize that the flood and other biblical stories are bull have a distinct advantage over you. Facts. Evidence. Stuff like that. We have the ability to accurately predict what will be found in any given geologic area based on known geologic history. We are learning to parse the genetic code and modify/repair/reinvent life itself. In the bible some folks, just a few generations after the end of the flood, tried building a tower to heaven, and they were punished by your god by being given different languages and sent to different parts of the world. We have skyscrapers all over the world that go much higher. We have people traveling in orbit around our planet that have not pissed off your god. We are able to send devices to Mars and beyond. We can do stuff that is impressive by any measure. Bible people can only manage to impress each other.

While you might think that "Ummm, it must be true because it is in the bible." looks really good on a t-shirt, the rest of us prefer Feynmann diagrams and E=mc2. Because we can actually do stuff with our choice. Without having to make up excuses every time we are challenged by anonymous folks on the Internet.

Your standards for truth are low, your thirst for knowledge is non-existent and your desire to do anything useful in this world (not counting oppress) disappeared with the unicorns. I'd try to keep that quiet if I were you.

There, that stroked my ego. Or at least I feel a lot better now. Excuse me while I go smug myself.

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.

Like I said, when we bring scientific facts to bear on the flood story, they go all "god magic" on us.

So, the Chinese and Aztec and Indian civilizations either did not notice the global flood sweeping them all away, or they all descended from Noah's family in a few generations and just quickly forgot about the ark and all that.

So, a handful of birds (two or seven, depending on which part you read) managed to evolve into everything from hummingbirds to penguins, from ostriches to kiwis, from pelicans to flamingos. In a few thousand years. While people watch but take no notice. Right.

Does "god magic" also produce blindness to the strange things it produces, or is it just general amnesia?

And what is this about science not being able to explain anything about the past? That is what some sciences are really good at: geology, paleontology, physical anthropology, archeology, astronomy. All these discipines investigate stuff that happened thousands, millions or billions of years IN. THE. PAST. Medical science deals largely with diseases and conditions that happened IN. THE. PAST.

And let's not forget about CSI. You know, the application of science (genetics, etc) to solving crimes, all of which took place IN. THE. PAST. Or would SW rather police use the bible to try to find the guy who robbed his house, beat him up and kidnapped his family last night? You know, IN. THE. PAST.

But I do point out that God has an unusual control over water and it's properties. Saying, material in the scriptures in one place, supports the scriptures in other places. And the stories also confirm themselves. Like people who complain about rough seas,I point out that no rough seas are mentioned. People who complain about room for every known species, I point out that "every known species" is a modern construct. Also not in the story. About animals eating each other, I point out that GOD brought them to the Ark.He showed that much influence, he could have them not eat each other. That's not a stretch.

I could grant all that. Let's face it, a being with total control could have ensured that the flood waters simply rose to a height of 6" above the head of every human - so there would be no "flat top" to the flood, just a surface with umpteen bumps and hillocks that moved around as the humans ran around trying to reach the water-free area always just out of their reach. And equally a super-powerful god could keep the animals from eating each other, and create food for them each day on the ark. And alter the shape of the earth and the continents before, during, and after.

But the question that is begged by allowing all those magical intercessions, is why? What a ridiculously convoluted plan to devise, implement, and clear up after! Reminiscenr of Dr.Evil at his little-finger curling best! It makes the forty days of rain quite irrelevant - if the water would be coming in a sort of cylinder around each human, then just a couple days would do it. Heck, why even make the rain land? Just make the rain fall and "stick" in a bubble around people's heads? Same end result, much less clear-up required.

I liked the picture of the Red Sea, BTW. DOES make me wonder why an Ark was even necessary - easier by far to simply hold back the waters around Noah's compound and save the building and stocking and whatnot. Equally, no need to gather animals - just keep a similar "zone of dryness" around them all. Equally, why not teleport the animals onto the Ark? Why not "poof" the Ark into being? Why not transport them all 40 days into the future, or give them the power of flight for a month or two, or.......anything really.

Point being, once the explanation starts to ignore everything we know about math, and climate, and fluid dynamics et al, and becomes "god is magic!".....then the whole story just becomes somewhat contrived and pointless.

These threads are fascinating, frustrating and futile. It's like a car accident that you can't look away from. Because no matter what, even when backed into an inescapable corner, there's always the "goddidit by magic" clause.

It's just a question of how long it takes before it kicks in, because most of those who believe in a literal flood are still happy enough to use it at the very start to explain things such as how Noah procured all the animals needed, or how they all got back to their original habitats, etc. Yet they insist on trying to argue the feasability of actually building the ark, or having it be seaworthy rather than just say "god just changed the laws of physics for that instance".

The complaints come in strong and hard in those instances that one is copping out.So your complaint can't hold any water.But I do point out that God has an unusual control over water and it's properties. Saying, material in the scriptures in one place, supports the scriptures in other places. And the stories also confirm themselves. Like people who complain about rough seas,I point out that no rough seas are mentioned. People who complain about room for every known species, I point out that "every known species" is a modern construct. Also not in the story. About animals eating each other, I point out that GOD brought them to the Ark.He showed that much influence, he could have them not eat each other. That's not a stretch.

So you really think a loving God would drown little children, babies? Man they must've been horrible little babies to deserve that.

THE Bible is a DISGRACE to GOD.

Logged

when you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change

These threads are fascinating, frustrating and futile. It's like a car accident that you can't look away from. Because no matter what, even when backed into an inescapable corner, there's always the "goddidit by magic" clause.

It's just a question of how long it takes before it kicks in, because most of those who believe in a literal flood are still happy enough to use it at the very start to explain things such as how Noah procured all the animals needed, or how they all got back to their original habitats, etc. Yet they insist on trying to argue the feasability of actually building the ark, or having it be seaworthy rather than just say "god just changed the laws of physics for that instance".

The complaints come in strong and hard in those instances that one is copping out.So your complaint can't hold any water.But I do point out that God has an unusual control over water and it's properties. Saying, material in the scriptures in one place, supports the scriptures in other places. And the stories also confirm themselves. Like people who complain about rough seas,I point out that no rough seas are mentioned. People who complain about room for every known species, I point out that "every known species" is a modern construct. Also not in the story. About animals eating each other, I point out that GOD brought them to the Ark.He showed that much influence, he could have them not eat each other. That's not a stretch.

So you really think a loving God would drown little children, babies? Man they must've been horrible little babies to deserve that.

THE Bible is a DISGRACE to GOD.

Babies die every day without any Bibles around. I've watched people die. Age has no bearing.Drowning is not exactly torture. I been tortured. I've been ready to die from pain.Drowning is painless. Living is way more painful than drowning, any day of the week.

But I do point out that God has an unusual control over water and it's properties. Saying, material in the scriptures in one place, supports the scriptures in other places. And the stories also confirm themselves. Like people who complain about rough seas,I point out that no rough seas are mentioned. People who complain about room for every known species, I point out that "every known species" is a modern construct. Also not in the story. About animals eating each other, I point out that GOD brought them to the Ark.He showed that much influence, he could have them not eat each other. That's not a stretch.

I could grant all that. Let's face it, a being with total control could have ensured that the flood waters simply rose to a height of 6" above the head of every human - so there would be no "flat top" to the flood, just a surface with umpteen bumps and hillocks that moved around as the humans ran around trying to reach the water-free area always just out of their reach. And equally a super-powerful god could keep the animals from eating each other, and create food for them each day on the ark. And alter the shape of the earth and the continents before, during, and after.

But the question that is begged by allowing all those magical intercessions, is why? What a ridiculously convoluted plan to devise, implement, and clear up after! Reminiscenr of Dr.Evil at his little-finger curling best! It makes the forty days of rain quite irrelevant - if the water would be coming in a sort of cylinder around each human, then just a couple days would do it. Heck, why even make the rain land? Just make the rain fall and "stick" in a bubble around people's heads? Same end result, much less clear-up required.

I liked the picture of the Red Sea, BTW. DOES make me wonder why an Ark was even necessary - easier by far to simply hold back the waters around Noah's compound and save the building and stocking and whatnot. Equally, no need to gather animals - just keep a similar "zone of dryness" around them all. Equally, why not teleport the animals onto the Ark? Why not "poof" the Ark into being? Why not transport them all 40 days into the future, or give them the power of flight for a month or two, or.......anything really.

Point being, once the explanation starts to ignore everything we know about math, and climate, and fluid dynamics et al, and becomes "god is magic!".....then the whole story just becomes somewhat contrived and pointless.

Best to imagine that it did happen, and that we do not know the details of how it happened. Both true.

Babies die every day without any Bibles around. I've watched people die. Age has no bearing.Drowning is not exactly torture. I been tortured. I've been ready to die from pain.Drowning is painless. Living is way more painful than drowning, any day of the week.

Wow. Just wow.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

I prefer to live and to work with the pain, so as to access the good things that life has to offer.

Tell you a little story, SW: I know what pain is. I was teased in elementary school and cried almost every day from the teasing. I went on to star in a play, write in the school paper, sing in choirs, win a math competition and rock the SAT tests with 99% percentiles across the board.

I had the misfortune to marry a man who pulled a bait-and-switch on Me and turned into a total rat bastard, an unfaithful and financially irresponsible narcissist with a BDSM fetish. The stress of divorcing him made Me quite ill, but I kept going. Life post-Whatsisname is pure gold, with a new home and financial security.

And I had a bad fall on the ice a couple of months ago, and ripped the living shit out of My left hamstring. Pain was at 10/10, the kind that makes the skin on the back of your hands shiver. I got to the doctor and played everything by the book (RICE, RICE, RICE -- No heat at all, much as I wanted to soak in a hot bath) because I had Plans for that week. Two days later I was back at work (although still icing the injury), that evening I was at band practice, and the following Sunday I was playing at a music festival.

Don't expect your afterlife to be magically better than this life. Live like you've got one shot at it, and do what you have to do to make it work for you.